An example of a mass shooting incident may be the June 12, 2016 terrorist attack occurred inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States, using legally purchased high-capacity firearms. Fifty people died including the gunman, who was killed by Orlando police after a three-hour standoff. An additional 53 people were injured. It was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and also the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks in 2001. [source]

If the gun control was stricter in Orlando, how different would it be?

Yes, all guns should be bannedYes, some guns should be banned, I think that would help significantlyYes, some guns should be banned, but that's not the key to the solutionNosee voting resultssaving...

I don't see how it is not a *part* of the solution. I'm actually amazed that some people see this shooting/mass killing as an example of sheer "evil, not guns" that is killing innocents. When in fact the same day this was posted, during a CNN press conference with the Orlando hospital staff one of many chirurgions would point out that except for the number of casualties (which fell out higher than usual during this particular shooting), through the years this kind of emergency had become somewhat of a standard/'practiced' procedure (or "tiered approach based on the number [of casualties] they would anticipate") for the trauma service of this hospital, averaging around four victims or so per night.

Why would you call it PC to state that it takes a gun to shoot someone.

Gun's aren't evil, a gun is an object, just like a car, a tv, it can't be evil. But we already restrict access to guns, at least to the good guys, people intent on breaking the law don't care if they follow the rules or not. But I hear how we should ban "assault weapons" by people who clearly don't understand there is no such thing as an assault weapon, you have a gun, and semi-automatic guns work on one of two basic principles, recoil or gas operated. Anything else is really cosmetic. I have a picture of two guns, one is an "assault weapon" the other is a hunting rifle. The both take a magazine, both are semi-automatic, both take the same round, both have "pistol grips", both have the same rate of fire, and both are the same length, and yet there is a call to ban one and not the other.

My other "problem" with restriction that are being proposed, has nothing to do with gun, but with rights, if we can restrict or take a right away, what to stop the government from taking them all away?

I think that for many (if not all) things, a risk exists. I wouldn't know what could stop a government from abusing their power (e.g. taking rights away) except for the history of mass discontent culminating into protest and/or the genuine intention to represent the people's interest.

My argument for restricting access to guns would be that while acknowledging the ambiguity of what the people's interest might *be*, the gun as an object has a heightened risk of doing harm. Congress is still a more complex entity than a unsafely stored weapon with its safety off due to some parents' negligence. The time between cause and effect is dramatically shorter than virtually anything, added to the fact that it *is* potentially a lethal weapon (unless customers massively store blanks instead of bullets - except they don't, do they).

The only aspect of it which is under control of the government is how easy it would be for a consumer to obtain such an object, or to give a fine "afterwards". Even if there was no case of the ongoing threat of terrorists and lone gunmen losing control, I would still try to find a way to regulate its possession, because of its potential lethality.

I agree with that example you gave, on how doubtful some measures might be (especially in this stadium), depending on the specific kind of the weapon. I have no counter-argument for that, because I lack further knowledge on the subject. I do know about politics, and from my experience policies like these take a couple of years (if not decades) to get perfected.

"My argument for restricting access to guns would be that while acknowledging the ambiguity of what the people's interest might *be*, the gun as an object has a heightened risk of doing harm."

Fare enough, but what's to keep the person from lying like CBS's reporter Ms. Paula Reid who bought a AR15 where she told the store’s general manager the gun was for her own use only transfer it to a third party a few hours later. (BTW I'm betting the ATF will let this one go even though it's a felony) Or someone who bought the gun, for legitimate reasons only to do something evil with it later on.

We have enough laws on the books right now, only they are not being enforced. In most cases the gun charges are dropped in the plea bargain. So it's not a case that we need more laws we just need the laws that are already on the books enforced, and prosecuted, not plea bargained off.

"..*is* potentially a lethal weapon " and " I would still try to find a way to regulate its possession, because of its potential lethality." But so is a car, a knife, gasoline, and many other items. But notice we don't restrict or even ask why you're buying gasoline, or a car, and in most cases a knife. You're also free to buy books that show you how to make plastic explosives, gun powder, IED's etc. Or would you also restrict the 1st amendment also? See how easy it is, restrict one right, and soon the second one falls. After all why should anyone know how to make plastic explosives, or an IED? And if the government thinks you might be up to no good, why not allow the police to search the home or business, why would you object if you have nothing to hide? And there goes another. And that group you belong too why they don't like some of the things the government is doing, so that groups shouldn't be allowed. But that's getting off topic.

But tell me what law or laws do you enact? EDIT But tell me what law or laws do you want to enact?

"So it's not a case that we need more laws we just need the laws that are already on the books enforced, and prosecuted, not plea bargained off." <- I think this is an important point that is worth mentioning more often.

And yes, a (kitchen)knife can be a lethal weapon too, but at least it can serve more than one purpose (not to mention a car) - contrary to a gun, which main function is to propel a small, hard and pointy object at high speed through a variety of surfaces (granted, it can be used to club someone as well). Mind you, so far I have been mentioning guns since the topic focuses on that.

I have even less knowlegde on law. I think in my country the laws on use of forbidden weapons is relatively strict, which I'm in favor of (to answer your question). I'm not sure what the exact standard is, but judging the illegality of a weapon usually goes - or should go - paired with the understanding of human error and degree of lethality (like how low is the threshold should there be a desire to harm someone).

And about people in high functions or public figures who serve as some sort of example and yet are lying about gun ownership in this day and age I can only say that they are cowards.

I don't know what country you're in, and yes some countries do have much stricter gun laws then the US while other have much looser laws and yet have less gun crime.

People tend to lump all gun deaths together. There were 33,169 gun deaths in 2013 of those 12,253 where homicides, and of those 285 were caused by rifles (assault weapons are generally rifles) Knives or cutting instruments 1,490 deaths, Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 687 deaths. So banning knifes would in theory save more people than banning assault weapons.

Handguns accounted for the bulk of the death. So even if you banned assault weapons and assuming that those deaths wouldn't have happen the ban would have only saved 285 people. Long guns have almost never been the weapon of choice for people wanting to commit murder. Which is why many people, me included, see such a ban as almost useless and an assault on the 2nd amendment. The ban on assault weapons was a do nothing solution to the problem and only caused the sale of long guns to go up. As much as I hate putting people in jail, I'm willing and would support a bill that would say "Use a gun in a crime, any crime and it's 10 years no parole, no probation, no good time off, 10 years straight." the only question on the form would be was a gun used? The good guy have no worry, while the incentive for the bad guys goes way down. Rob a 7-11 with a gun, 10 year jail sentence. That would be a big disincentive to them carrying a gun of any type. That to me would be reasonable, you can a gun but if you use it to break the law, you will face stiff punishment.

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

load further replies (2)

::unhide-discussion::

0

User voted Yes, some guns should be banned, but that's not the key to the solution.

I don't think they'll ever take them all away, at least in our lifetime. I still think that this "war on drugs" should be put on pause and a "war on unregistered, illegally owned, and unsafely owned firearms" should be started.

Well, certainly those trucks can be obtained in the supermarket with a special discount if you're lucky. However, an attractive alternative could be the yearly truck show - where the seller boasts how quickly they go from 0 to 100 with an estimated bodycount only to be left to the buyers imagination. Anyone can obtain them, too. Can't be young enough to transport yourself with a good old truck.